board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Should Simple Majority Rule?

Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 118 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Should Invites be Determined by Simple Majority of Those Voting?
Poll ended at Fri 11 Feb , 2005 9:37 pm
Yes
  
46% [ 11 ]
No
  
54% [ 13 ]
Total votes: 24
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Should Simple Majority Rule?
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 9:37 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Let's clarify this one thing, people, before entangling ourselves in a discussion of how much consideration a 'no' vote should be given.

If only a few people want the 'no' vote to weigh for more than just one vote, perhaps they can express in the thread exactly how they would like a small contingent of objections to be handled, and we can come up with a simple procedure without time-consuming debate.

Jn

edit: apologies - I've added a ten-day limit on this poll

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 9:39 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Simple majority meaning... in a 8yes and 9no's the no's win.
Whichever is the higher wins, even if it's just by one difference.

Sorry for the rehash... but sometimes my brain's just in knots.
___________
Resident witch


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 9:43 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Yes, Alandriel.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Guruthostirn
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 9:47 pm
That Weird American
Offline
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:30 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest U.S.
 
Nope, no majority.

'Course, as my sister might point out, I was telling her just the other day that democracy will come eventually...

It's far too late, but here's an idea for an invitation thread: No voting, no commenting, except when someone has a problem. Am undetested thread would have two posts: the first, saying who they are, and the last, after whatever interval, saying that the person is invited. All we care about, when it comes to inviting people, is not how many people want them here, but how many people don't want them here, and for what reasons do they feel that way.

_________________

That crazy American Jerk...

"No stop signs, speed limits, no body's gonna slow me down..."

"You can run, but you'll die tired." -- What the archer said to the knight.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 9:55 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
I hate to be the logical spoke in this wheel, but what happens if in this very thread you have 33% say you need a 75% majority?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 9:56 pm
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
Simple majority for all issues.

I have the niggling impression, however, that we should tread more carefully in the cases of "no" votes for invites, especially when they're a personal and heartfelt issue. But I have no clue how those cases would be measured.

Sorry not to be more helpful. :(

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 10:00 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I can live with a majority vote.

Simple majority.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 10:46 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
For invites, I think NOs need to be looked at seriously. I think there needs to be a concensus, rather than just a majority. If letting someone in is going to seriously upset 30 or 40% of voters, there's something wrong.


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 10:51 pm
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
Where do we draw the line, though? 10%? 30%?

I personally would say that 10% of strong "no"s would be enough to make me reconsider the issue.

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 10:53 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
I understand the importance of giving extra consideration to "no" votes, but a simple majority is by far the most straightforward solution. If you abandon it, you'll be arguing until the end of time about how to weight votes.

So how about this? Let simple majority decide, but allow each person a certain number of absolute vetos per year - 3 maybe. That way, if they care enough about blocking someone who has received majority approval, they can do it by "spending" one of their veto votes.

_________________

Living well is the best revenge. --George Herbert


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 11:09 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
I don't think it will be very long before we're open. Until that happens, I think we can manage to play it by ear. That meaning, we have a vote, and majority wins, unless it's evident someone has a big problem with the person being invited.

No, that's not clear at all, is it.

What I'm trying to say is, if someone has that kind of a problem, it should be their responsibility to convince the rest...wait, that doesn't sound right.

:scratch

Ummm...okay, how about this. Let's take what Guru said- cut out the discussing and commenting. Simply vote. ...no, that won't work either.

I can't figure this out.

Yesterday I've realised that I don't really like what we're doing with the inviting- we're talking about people, discussing whether they're worth to be here or not, and more than often revealing information about them that's perhaps not top secret, but somewhat private. It feels ugly, now that we're much less 'hunted' so to speak than at the beginning. I think I want to get as close to a clean vote with no gossip, or no vote, as possible...probably not something that can work just yet.

Okay, I think I've made up my mind. (sic!)
I say simple majority should win.
We will be an open board quite soon, or so I hope. If someone was to be denied entry now because of a minority vote, they would enter on their own sooner or later.

I know this feels like the minority is ignored- but think: if the minority's choice is honoured, the majority is ignored. It's gotta be one way or another. A person can always try and convince the rest of us of their stand. And if someone speaks- they are heard. No one really knows whether they're in the minority or majority before the vote is over, so it can't be said that a certain group is ignored. I hope everyone can understand that.... I mean I've been in the minority too, twice, when I voted yes for people who are not yet welcome here. I can't say it felt nice. But that's life.


(let's not, however, rule out the possibility of exceptions to the rule of majority. But exceptions...means exceptions. Not every second vote gets canceled...exceptions.)

:)(feels good to make up one's mind)

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 11:09 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
.....and Ethel just posted the perfect solution.

:LMAO:

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 11:34 pm
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
What would a veto imply? Anyone who uses it cancels the voting immediately? (just trying to make sure that I get the terms right)

But what would happen afterwards? I mean... can the thread be resuscitated after an interval, to see if people have changed their minds?

I'm guessing that so far we've been considering strong "no"s a bit like vetoes... (if they are what I think they are)

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 11:35 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
It is a possible solution. Thank goodness we have you here Ethel :mrgreen:
I've voted against allowing simple majority but if I have 3 lives.. erm.. I mean 3 vetos, then I think I could live with that. It would mean though that even just one veto in a voting thread would result in that person not being invited.

For me, that's not a problem. But it might be for some others...

and edit for Ber was quicker:

I'd say yes to in such a case lock the thread for a period of a month before another vote could be put up.
_____________
Resident witch


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 11:41 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
The veto ought to be reasonable though. If someone wants to veto they should explain. It might be hard sometimes, but it's only fair.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 2:53 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Simple majority.

YES
NO
ABSTAIN (not to be given any further consideration in the count, but at least informs everyone of how many have looked and responded to the poll)
VETO (though I hate the idea of blackballing :( ) but I'd say 3 is too many - I'd say one veto per member per year; that way you have to think damn hard before dropping the ball on someone.

And you can't veto on someone else's behalf (buying votes! :shock:)

No commentary- would simplify the whole process; however, does this mean silent voting? Perhaps a simple "I voted yes/no/abstained" so we know who swings which way? Veto could be completely confidential, because often the reasons would be very personal.

And when someone has been vetoed - do we bring that vote up again, knowing that the blackballer has no black balls left? That would be sabotage, no? But how long do we wait?

Edit: just saw alandriel.

If we bring it up again in a month - that would sabotage the veto, as there would be no more black balls to drop.

I'm not sure that discussing reasons for no votes and vetos would actually be productive; would be a roundabout of a conversation, for if someone feels negative, they feel negative. I think votes should simply stand - and we must take the responsibility of casting a vote very seriously.

You don't have the opportunity to explain yourself when voting in a government - you just do it, knowing that it's irrevocable.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 3:16 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Come to think...I've been convinced that the ABSTAIN option is unnecessary.

YES
NO
VETO

...will do the job.

simple majority.


Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 3:40 am
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
Actually, Imp, having thought it over, I agree with you. One absolute, unarguable veto per year per customer. If it were enduring, and if there were only one, I think people would be very hesitant to use them. But it would still be there as a protection to those who really couldn't stand the idea of a particular person being invited. The veto would expire after a year. (But the vetoing member would have a new one to cast by then.)

I'm not saying this is the or even a solution - just trying to come up with concrete suggestions to get us past the "what does a majority mean" impasse.

I honestly believe simple majority is the only long-term workable solution. But a veto would address the worries of an adamantly opposed minority.

_________________

Living well is the best revenge. --George Herbert


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 3:42 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Sorry - third and last time, I promise!
Rholarowyn wrote:
From the Squiddy vote thread:

There have been two threads where I have been vocal about my reason why I didn't want someone to be invited on to the boards. In one of them I was the only desenting vote. Not only were my reasons heard and discussed, in the end some of those in the thread wanted to know where I stood and if I had changed my mind. I hadn't, but I also stated if the majority of the members wanted that person here then I said to go ahead and invite them. This mattered to me greatly. I was the only no vote among several yes votes yet my opinion was listened to and considered.
Jny wrote:
Also from the Squiddy vote thread:

...The other thing is, I did not perceive the invite threads to be 'elections' in the strict sense. The purpose of leaving them up for ten days, as I understood it, was to give everyone a chance to see it so that if someone knew a reason why that person should not be given an invitation they would have a chance to convey that reason to everyone else...<snip>...I'm a newbie here, but I suppose I could, you know, invite all my M00bie friends and the more of us there are, the more likely more of us will be voted in, possibly over the objection of the original members. This feels not quite right to me, given that we've not yet decided when to open the board to the public and how the board will be run when that happens. If every person who joins can start an invite thread, and the majority of the people here may not even know the person, then we have effectively opened the board to the public. Is that what you want?


Thought-provoking posts. I would feel uncomfortable riding roughshod over the minority. I would feel uncomfortable riding barefoot over them, too...

May I suggest:

An invitation thread should NOT INCLUDE a poll when it is first put up. Should simply be a testament for the person to be invited. Then discussion can ensue for a period of time (say, 7 days?) and the poll can then be put up on the top of the thread at the end of that week to run for 3 days (total: 10 days, as decided in that other thread). That way, no one votes until the discussion has occurred and all concerns and pleas have been aired.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 3:55 am
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Ethel, I agree with you entirely.

A great solution.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 118 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: